Everyone reading this knows exactly why our Founding Fathers put the right to bear arms in the Constitution, they believed it was important enough to be number two on the list, right after freedom of speech. We have a right to have guns in order to protect ourselves, not only from people who mean to do us harm, but our Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns to protect ourselves from our own Government, which by the way was the main purpose of the second amendment.
But somehow, Liberals just don’t understand that, they would be more than happy to get rid of the second amendment all together. They consistently push for more gun laws, even though there seems to be nearly 20,000 gun laws on the books now, that’s if you count federal, state and local laws, and still people die and still they cry for more laws. They cannot get it through their heads that criminals will always get guns if they want them, no matter how many laws they pass. More laws just make it harder for honest law-abiding citizens to obtain guns for their protection.
Law-abiding citizens with guns are a deterrent to crime, but Liberals refuse to let that sink into their heads, even though the proof is there for them to see. The harder the Government makes it for honest citizens to buy guns the higher the crime rate, Chicago is the perfect example. There are many stories about how honest gun owners have stopped shooters and saved lives, but Liberals and the Media will never tell you about it. Here are a couple of examples, courtesy of Ann Coulter.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple of rounds?
At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls). Thanks Ms. Coulter.
Honest, responsible gun toting citizens are a deterrent to shooters, why can’t Liberals understand that, let’s make it easier for them. Suppose I am a criminal standing in front of two houses, wondering which house to break into, when I find out the house on the right has a gun owner living there, now which one am I going to break into?
This is one man’s opinion.
Today’s liberals apparently believe that government is “the answer” to any problem. As long as they are the government, that is.
And so, to oppose the government, perhaps by taking arms against it, is to oppose those liberals…personally, they think, since everything revolves around them. Not unlike the thinking of many institutions in the Dark Ages.
The Second Amendment IS the reason that a citizen of the US succeeds at taking risk. Because they know that their recognized Rights have, in a worst scenario, a way to be enforced by the People.
And before they start talking about banning/restricting ammunition…”Bear arms” includes the munitions. It doesn’t say “Bear clubs.”
In the thread of the article, it is blatantly obvious that armed citizens reduce crime. By its very presence or potential presence.
Criminals/Evil Doers assess risk just like anyone else. And they will go where they can accomplish their task with the least risk.
Coming up against an unplanned/unanticipated armed opponent isn’t in their planning. And they often, as the article illustrates, fold when confronted.
Well said Dennis